This is an archive of past discussions with User:Metropolitan90. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1701:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Metropolitan90. You have new messages at LauraHale's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
... if you have a second to re-delete this, I was updating the CSD tag right when you deleted it, so it got recreated. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand your point, and I've participated in discussions about related topics before, but not with regard to the Special: namespace. The most relevant guideline I can find is at WP:R#DELETE, which states, "In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created." What this means to me is that, for example, Belgique and België are valid redirects to Belgium, because those are the French and Dutch versions of the name and French and Dutch are languages used in Belgium. However, Belgikondre is not a proper redirect, even though it is the Sranan Tongo version of the name, because Sranan Tongo is not a language commonly used in Belgium. But those are all examples for the mainspace articles, not necessarily applicable to the Special: namespace. In summary, I would recommend that if you think that Especial:Llista de seguiment should be a redirect to Special:Watchlist, you should take the discussion to Wikipedia:Deletion review. This way, we can let the community decide what should be done in this kind of situation. --Metropolitan90(talk)01:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem's a little worse than you charitably interpret it to be. The article had actualy been deleted; the author has recreated it in article space. Since its deletion in 2007, I don't see that the Keep case has gotten any stronger. I pushed through an AfD listing of the article, trying to get it right after getting to step 2, but I clearly botched it. I'm not sure how to back this change out and do it right. Actually, under the circumstances, it should probably go to Speedy Delete nomination. Any help you can render would be appreciated. Yakushima (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was deleted and re-created, which probably shouldn't have been done. But nobody seems to have noticed that it was a re-creation of a deleted article for more than three years, so I think it's best to forgive the re-creation and just deal with the article on the merits, such as whether the topic is notable, the statements in the article are verifiable and sourced, etc. To do this, go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderated nuclear explosion (2nd nomination) and provide your explanation of why the article ought to be deleted. The new AfD nomination is fixed now -- it just doesn't include the substantive reason for wanting the article deleted, because I didn't know what that reason was. Feel free to cite reasons used in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderated nuclear explosion if they are still relevant. I personally don't know much about nuclear physics, so I'm not in a position to comment on whether the article is any good or not. --Metropolitan90(talk)15:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Chris TEK O'Ryan deletion
Hi Metropolitan, I'm not a great wikipedia-er so excuse me if I'm writing this in the wrong place. I believe my article on Chris 'TEK' O'Ryan was deleted unfairly. He is a Grammy-Award winning sound engineer (I have seen the trophy) and this can be verified by The Recording Academy. As he was not the artist but the recording engineer there was little or no press about it. He is an industry leader, at the top level of his field and his name is on millions of platinum selling records around the world. He is endorsed by major music software companies such as Waves and Melodyne (see interviews). He was also shown on television recently working in the studio with the top 12 contestants on this years American Idol. I don't understand how he is not worthy of an article.BrittyGirl (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Although I am an administrator, I shouldn't and wouldn't restore the page unilaterally. The page was deleted based on a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris 'TEK' O'Ryan. Therefore, if you want the page to be restored, you should request deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you want a copy of the deleted page to be put in your user space so you can edit it in the meantime, I am willing to do that -- the page will be placed at User:BrittyGirl/Chris 'TEK' O'Ryan if you request that. But it should not be moved back into the mainspace until a deletion review is completed which would authorize that. (If I seem to be expressing myself with too much Wikipedia jargon, feel free to ask further questions.) --Metropolitan90(talk)01:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Metropolitan, yes please restore the page under my name and I will research the deletion review and also some pages The Anone suggested on notability, and verifiability etc. Thanks! BrittyGirl (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.
This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!
Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1719:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. My article "Dominic J. Marino, DVM" was recently deleted. I believe I need your approval to create a new page similar to the deleted page. I am fairly new to wikipedia and I would like to have another shot in creating an article on the subject. I believe I could fix any problems regarding notability and reliable third party sources that the article had. Thanks for your help.
Katiecoggins (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that another article about this person was deleted by an Articles for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic J. Marino. Therefore, in order to be allowed to re-create the article, you will need to submit a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. In the meantime, you can get a copy of the deleted article and work on it in your user space, to help prove in the deletion review that the article can be brought up to Wikipedia standards. If you want me to provide that copy, just let me know. Finally, please note that if the article is allowed to be re-created, it will be placed at Dominic J. Marino without the "DVM" at the end, in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). --Metropolitan90(talk)05:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi! What sources do you mean when you cite that Kreayshawn is/may be notable? I don't deny that they might exist, but I don't think a blogpage, twitter account, youtube channel, and a facebook page count towards notability. thoriyan14:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Abbythecat (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Could you please check into a page entitled "Katherine Orrison"? I do not believe this is a noteworthy enough page. Being biographer to or married to a famous person doesn't make her one. I question how noteworthy her "projects" are (magazine articles and such). Her books are minor. Neither have won awards. Some claims may constitute hoaxes.Citations needed. References and categories need cleaned up. Please let me know what you think. I propose deletion. Thank you. Abbythecat (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC).
I think I am neutral about this. Whether Katherine Orrison is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article seems like a judgment call. If you want to nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, you are free to do so. At this point I am not planning to either support or oppose deletion, although I could change my mind. I do note that I don't see any problem with the categories on the page, so I don't know why they would need to be cleaned up. --Metropolitan90(talk)01:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I declined your speedy deletion request for the above article because it did assert importance, and is covered in a third-party reliable source. Regards,Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, this one is a judgment call. On the one hand, The Return of Billy Jack (note capitalization) is an unfinished film, and those are usually not notable. On the other hand, this is a sequel in a once-popular film series, and there was some media coverage of it. (See [2], for example.) I tend to think that if this article went to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, it would be more likely to be kept than deleted. But if you disagree, you are free to nominate it at AfD. --Metropolitan90(talk)04:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand, but if you will, a few responses. First, I wrote the Return Of Billy Jack page, so shouldn't I have the right to have it deleted? Second, wow, you guys finally accepted something I contributed? Can't believe it; everything else I wrote has been rejected. Finally, as I wrote the page, can I edit it? Abbythecat (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Abbythecat.Abbythecat (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I missed the fact that you were the original creator of the article The Return of Billy Jack. That makes a big difference. If you actually want the page to be deleted, you can put {{db-author}} on the page. That means that you are requesting deletion on the grounds that you are the only person who has added substantial content to the page. (That is, it is not enough to say that you started the article, but also it should not have had substantial contributions from other editors.) In this case, it looks like, in fact, this page is eligible for speedy deletion on that ground because I don't see substantial contributions from others there. So if you want to request speedy deletion by putting {{db-author}} on the page, you can do so. On the other hand, if you want the page kept and to continue editing it, you can do that instead. I'm not sure why you're asking whether you can edit The Return of Billy Jack. You know that this is Wikipedia, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", right? So I don't know what you mean by the question. --Metropolitan90(talk)23:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Abbythecat (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Abbythecat again. Have to ask, are you aware of the "Anti-W" project? This is a group of people who create pages at Wikipedia that are hoaxes. They also edit false information. And remove truthful data. I am NOT a member of this group and I do NOT do these things. I DO think I've been a victim of them, as most everything I've contributed gets deleted. I have read of their fake contributions, and, sadly, Wikipedia does list them. Yes, there are several pages on Wikipedia that are hoaxes. Movies that don't exist; phoney TV programs; people that aren't real; much false information; etc. While my pages get deleted, they get some kind of amusement fooling Wikipedia with hoaxes. I don't understand this, but it takes all kind. There is a site about this so well-hidden nobody will find it unless they know what precise words to google. Also a xeroxed fanzine passed around at movie conventions and shows. I can tell you about a lot of these hoaxes. They keep doing it and have, in fact, done so recently. Again, I'm in NO WAY a part of this, so I have no problem pointing out their hoaxes. Let me know if you are interested. Ta. Abbythecat (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Abbythecat.Abbythecat (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I have not heard of the Anti-W project before. However, if you find hoax articles created by this project or other people, please bring them to the attention of the Wikipedia community by nominating them for deletion using the process described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. And if you can identify which users are perpetrating hoaxes, you may want to notify the community of administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You don't need to notify me personally about the hoaxes or who is perpetrating them; I read both the Articles for Deletion log, and the admin noticeboard for incidents, on a regular basis. --Metropolitan90(talk)04:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Abbythecat (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Well, I was hoping to put this group out of business, but there are way too many hoaxes to get on a one-at-a-time basis. If I may, I wrote a page around the start of May called "R.H. Campbell" and it was on for about 3 weeks with no problems. On May 25, I checked the anti-W site and saw it targeted for deletion. On May 26, Wikipedia told me it was going to be deleted. I tried reverse psychology and encouraged the deletion to confuse and stop this group, but it didn't work, and it was deleted on May 28. I noticed another page I wrote over a year ago is posted on their site as one they got deleted. I'm not the only one they target; there's over 100. I have to be VERY careful how I word this -- if you check the page I asked you to delete on May 31 -- if you look CAREFULLY at this page and can't spot any hoaxes or coded messages -- then, sadly, forget it -- this group is just to clever. As you don't seem concerned, I won't be, either. Abbythecat (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC).
I have to admit that I didn't see any hoaxes or coded messages on that page. Maybe other people might see hoaxes or coded messages there, I don't know. I would recommend that if you have problems that you want to raise about hoaxes, malicious editing, etc., that you raise these problems on a Wikipedia page of more general interest such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I just don't think it's going to accomplish much to raise these problems to one editor at a time on their user talk pages (whether myself or other editors). If there is a problem that affects the Wikipedia community, it should be addressed on a page that is read by a significant number of people in the community, rather than just my user talk page or the user talk pages of a small number of people. --Metropolitan90(talk)23:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Abbythecat, do you have any links or other evidence you can provide of this groups existence? While in some senses what happens off-wiki doesn't have bearing here, if there is a concerted campaign to damage the encyclopedia, there are things that can be done. If you prefer not to post the information here, you can send it to me by email (just go to my user page, and on the left under "Toolbox", there's a link you can click to "email this user". Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Abbythecat (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Abbythecat. Qwyrxian, I think you are starting to see my concerns. I'm not a conspiracy nut. I was told if I mentioned this organization, nobody would believe it. Yes, I am sure these people are reading these messages, as they have ruined my contributions before. So there is only so much I can say here. I can tell you this much: I know the word sequence to google ... it lists sites, I know the site to go to ... it appears to be a real site and might be ... I know the exact place on the exact page to click which takes me to the part of that site that is Anti-W. They also call it by other names, more vulgar, such as "F--- W". There you see lists of hoaxes. They list fake death dates for living people; phoney "ancient rituals"; movies and TV programs that don't exist; fake "customs" of countries that are really vulgar slang; a great deal of tom-foolery aimed at colleges, etc.Abbythecat (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC).
Farouk Ibrahim
It's OK, I have translated the article into English, yet I do not know Arabic. And if you're wondering why the title is in English, it's because I moved the article to an English title (thanks to Chrome).--Thewikifyer's corner16:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing this CSD nomination, userfying it is probably a good solution. I'll keep an eye on it and see what the creator does with it in the future. - Ahunt (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Usually if a page is up for speedy deletion, its title matches the article creator's name more or less, the article creator doesn't have a user page, and the subject is over 18 years old, I will userfy the page instead of deleting it. --Metropolitan90(talk)17:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.
No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.
We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.
Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Metropolitan90. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
